Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:30:42 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3 |
| |
* Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:37:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > What happened to Nick's cleanup patch to do_page_fault (a month or two > > > ago? I complained about some of the issues in his first version and > > > asked for some further cleanups, but I think that whole discussion ended > > > with him saying "I am going to add those changes that you suggested (in > > > fact, I already have)". > > > > > > And then I didn't see anything further. Maybe I just missed the end > > > result. Or maybe we have it in some -mm branch or something? > > > > they would have been in tip/x86/mm and would be upstream now had Nick > > re-sent a v2 series but that never happened. I think they might have > > fallen victim to a serious attention deficit caused by the SLQB patch ;-) > > Well, I already added Linus's suggestions but didn't submit it because > there was a bit of work going on in that file as far as I could see, > both in the x86 tree and in -mm: > > (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.28-rc2/2.6.28-rc2-mm1/broken-out/mm-invoke-oom-killer-from-page-fault.patch) > > It isn't a big deal to resolve either way, but I don't want to make > Andrew's life harder. > > [Yes OK now I'm the guilty one of pushing in an x86 patch not via the > x86 tree ;) This one is easy to break in pieces, but I didn't want to > create a dependency between the trees]
That's OK, and the oom-killer patch impact on x86 was incidental, so it was correct to push it via -mm IMO.
Now that the bits that went in via Andrew's tree upstream, there's a handful of new conflicts in the patch - so would you mind to (re-)send a merged up patch against latest -git?
Ingo
| |